Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 721 - KERALA HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 721 - KERALA HIGH COURT - [2016] 387 ITR 162 - TDS u/s 194C - status of sub-contractor - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Tribunal came to a finding that Sri Suresh is a sub-contractor of the assessee. This factual finding of the Tribunal is based on its findings that lump sum payments were made by the assessee to Suresh and that Suresh was entirely responsible for transportation without even accounting to the assessee the expenses incurred by him for discharge of the transportat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ved at by the Tribunal that Sri Suresh was a sub-contractor, is not perverse to be interfered in an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Once we accept the status of Sri Suresh as a sub-contractor, the liability under section 194C is automatically attracted. Admittedly, the assessee has not effected deduction under the said section. Consequence thereof is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. - Decided against assessee - I. T. A. No. 28 of 2015 - Dated:- 18-7-20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

non compliance of section 194C in respect of the payments made by the assessee to one Suresh, who was found to be a sub-contractor, the amounts paid were disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the contention of the assessee that Sri. Suresh was only an employee and not a sub-contractor for transportation of the liquefied petroleum gas manufactured and marketed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited whose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Tribunal by filing I. T. A. No. 153 of 2014 and by the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It is this order, which is under challenge before us. 3. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. 4. The question of law that is framed for our consideration is whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the appellant is not liable to deduct tax under section 194C and whether the Tribunal should have deleted the addition of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version